RAM KUMAR DIXIT Vs. DHIRENDRA SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this review petition seeking review of order dated 25.2.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.845/2015. Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel, by taking this Court to para 9 of the order under review, contended that this Court has given the finding that the judgment of Supreme Court cannot be read as a statute. Precedential value of a judgment depends on the facts and circumstances in which a matter is decided. He submits that para 9 of the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 1333 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) and others) makes it clear that the finding was not confined to the statute in hand. It was a general finding/conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court, whereas it is a conclusion of that nature, it was binding on all Courts including the Supreme Court (Bench of similar strength). He relied on 2013(4) MPLJ 679 (Scindia Devasthan Regd. Charitable Trust v. Praveen Kumar Nigam and others) and AIR 2015 Allahabad 97 (Smt. Urmila Devi v. State of U. P. and others). He submits that the judgment of Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts and authorities. The judgment of High Court is also binding on the Benches of similar strength. If one bench disagrees with the finding of another Bench of similar strength, the only course open to the subsequent Bench is to refer the matter for constitution of larger bench before the Hon 'ble Chief Justice. In nutshell, Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel submits that the document Annexure P -7 makes it clear that it is not a re -delinquishment deed, on the contrary it is a simple agreement.

(2.) PRAYER is opposed by Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.3. He also relied on various paragraphs of order dated 25.2.2015. He submits that there is no material on the basis of which review jurisdiction can be exercised.

(3.) NO other point is pressed by counsel for the parties.